Freedom and Prosperity

Tuesday, January 25, 2005

The Petty Mindset of Oppression

Bureaucrats Do Not Like To Be Told They Are Silly!

"It took a year, 10 court hearings, a police helicopter, a spotter aircraft, a video camera and lots of public money to bring Sarah McCaffery to justice."

An article in today's UK "Daily Telegraph" tells the story of this desperate woman!

The dastardly crime?

"Holding a Golden Delicious apple as she drove to work."

In the UK, it's an offence to drive while eating or drinking (also while using a mobile phone). While I can understand the reason for this particular law (indeed, would even support it), that's not really what this story is about.

"The magistrates heard that when Miss McCaffery had the "temerity" to challenge the prosecution in court, which attracted publicity, the police used their helicopter and a fixed-wing spotter aircraft to film the junction as evidence, while a sergeant and a constable in a patrol car made a video.

Mr Forrester said: "This is all about trying to crush her because she stood up and said, 'This is silly.' The police and the CPS do not like to be told they are silly.""

Indeed. Tyranny often starts in a small way. This story is simply the latest in a series of examples of the authorities in the UK acting in an oppressive fashion in what is really a very trivial case. The point is how it is illustrative of the mindset of the petty bureaucrat and how the apparatus of the state can easily be turned towards oppression in the absence of strong safeguards.

Note to readers.

I'll be travelling for the next 4 weeks. I hope to be able to continue posting but it may be even more intermittent than even in recent weeks!

Wednesday, January 19, 2005

Public Morality

Why What Politicians Do In Their Private Lives Is a Public Issue

Yesterday, I touched on the issue of public morality. In particular, I made mention of the David Blunkett affair. I want to elaborate a little on why I think the private lives of politicians are a legitimate target of public interest.

When Blunkett was forced to resign, pretty much all commentators thought that if it had simply been a matter of him having an affair with a married woman, then that would not have been sufficient reason for him to go. The argument was that he was single, it was presumably a matter between two consenting adults and that was the end of it.

In any case, throughout history the ruling classes have hardly been a model of moral rectitude, why should we suddenly be so prudish?

Let's leave aside the implication of that last argument (it's OK for our rulers to have lax standards). If we had limited government, I'd be inclined to go along with this. After all, none of us are perfect and, except for one thing. I would be inclined to give politicians the same tolerance as everyone else. Provided you don't infringe on others, what you do is your own affair.

However. Politicians, whether left wing or right wing, seem to share a common characteristic. They all think they know better than we do what is best for us and they all want to boss people around! Given this, I think it is entirely legitimate that we know how they conduct their own affairs. After all, if someone is claiming the right to tell us how to live our lives, I think we should know how they live up to these standards.

The sordid truth, of course, as Dalrymple points out, is that the political class in general is given to what he describes as "libertinisme". Left wing politicians in particular see nothing wrong with this and are quite open about it. I guess in some ways that's better than the moral humbug and hypocrisy we often see from right wingers who often feel in necessary to cloak themselves in the garb of conventional religion.

However, when this impacts on public policy, it has had the disastrous effects that Dalrymple describes.

I'll discuss further what James Davidson and Lord William Rees-Mogg describe as the "Imperial Culture of the Slums" in a future post.

Tuesday, January 18, 2005

The Evil Consequences of the Welfare State

What Happens When You Tell People They Don't Have To Take Responsibility For Their Actions

Came across the following article "The Frivolity of Evil" by Theodore Dalrymple. Dalrymple is the author of "Life at the Bottom: The Worldview That Makes The Underclass" and until recently worked as a psychiatrist in a slum hospital and a prison in England. In his work, Dalrymple has seen first hand the consequences of the welfare state.

I've often commented about the inherent flaws in the system of "mis-representative democracy" that prevails in the western world today. In particular, the combination of politicians own self interest to get re-elected and their ability to raise the money to do so by taxation (which is then used to bribe particular groups) means that the system has an in-built bias towards ever increasing levels of government taxation and public spending. This isn't a "flaw" of the system, it's a feature!

Even more disturbing, however, is the moral depravity of the system and the evil that results when that system not only condones but actually encourages irresponsible behaviour. Dalrymple's article describes this very starkly when he talks about the breakdown of traditional social structures in the slum areas where the underclass reside. In particular, the demise of the family and the incidence of single-parent households.

"A necessary, though not sufficient, condition is the welfare state, which makes it possible, and sometimes advantageous, to behave like this. Just as the IMF is the bank of last resort, encouraging commercial banks to make unwise loans to countries that they know the IMF will bail out, so the state is the parent of last resort—or, more often than not, of first resort. The state, guided by the apparently generous and humane philosophy that no child, whatever its origins, should suffer deprivation, gives assistance to any child, or rather the mother of any child, once it has come into being. In matters of public housing, it is actually advantageous for a mother to put herself at a disadvantage, to be a single mother, without support from the fathers of the children and dependent on the state for income. She is then a priority; she won't pay local taxes, rent, or utility bills.

As for the men, the state absolves them of all responsibility for their children. The state is now father to the child. The biological father is therefore free to use whatever income he has as pocket money, for entertainment and little treats. He is thereby reduced to the status of a child, though a spoiled child with the physical capabilities of a man: petulant, demanding, querulous, self-centered, and violent if he doesn't get his own way. The violence escalates and becomes a habit. A spoiled brat becomes an evil tyrant."

I would encourage you to read the whole article.

This then, is the result of the misguided meddling of arrogant and ignorant politicians who believe they know best how people should live their lives.

"Ultimately, the moral cowardice of the intellectual and political elites is responsible for the continuing social disaster that has overtaken Britain, a disaster whose full social and economic consequences have yet to be seen. A sharp economic downturn would expose how far the policies of successive governments, all in the direction of libertinism, have atomized British society, so that all social solidarity within families and communities, so protective in times of hardship, has been destroyed. The elites cannot even acknowledge what has happened, however obvious it is, for to do so would be to admit their past responsibility for it, and that would make them feel bad. Better that millions should live in wretchedness and squalor than that they should feel bad about themselves—another aspect of the frivolity of evil. Moreover, if members of the elite acknowledged the social disaster brought about by their ideological libertinism, they might feel called upon to place restraints upon their own behavior, for you cannot long demand of others what you balk at doing yourself."

As to this last point, think David Blunkett! What kind of example was he? On his resignation, there was a lot of humbug about how his private life was his affair but the points raised above put this issue in a somewhat different light. If an individual chooses to act in an immoral fashion, well that's up to them if they are prepared to accept the consequences. However, when a political elite encourages and enables immoral behaviour, the consequences of which the law-abiding citizen has to live with, that's a different story.

Wednesday, January 12, 2005

The Evil of Communism

Left Wing "Intellectuals" Still Don't Get It

There have been a couple of opinion pieces in the "Sydney Morning Herald" in recent days on the topic of communism. The first (here) talks about the various horrors inflicted by various communist regimes over the course of the twentieth century and laments the fact that various communist icons have been turned into "chic items of popular culture" (think Che Guevara T-shirts!).

The second article (here) is an attempted rebuttal of the first article. The author, David McKnight, claims that "Hope and optimism were associated with Marxism in a way that was impossible with fascism" and goes on to say:

"The claim that Stalin and Hitler were equals is part of an argument which tries to prove that Marxism, as an intellectual framework, was akin to fascism."

McKnight then goes on to describe the differences between fascism and Marxism and while he admits there may have been some unfortunate episodes, basically communists and Marxists were idealists and on the side of the angels.

Couple of problems with this. To start with, the first article (by Louis Nowra) does not make the claim that "Stalin and Hitler were equals". McKnight doesn't address the central point of the article at all (the mass murder of citizens by communist regimes). He uses the intellectually dishonest trick of reframing the issue. Guess I shouldn't be surprised at this!

More to the point, there is no recognition of the fundamental evil that underlies any collectivist ideology. That is, the elevation of the group over the individual and condoning the use of coercion and violence against the individual in the name of the "common good".

The flaw in any collectivist ideology, of course, is who decides on the "common good"? Invariably it's those who seize the reins of power and we end up with an elite lording it over everyone else. In essence, communism is no different from a monarchy! Substitute the "party" for the "upper classes" and what's the difference?

Unfortunately, the cancer of collectivism is still with us and apologists such as McKnight help keep it alive.

Best Wishes For 2005!

A Belated "Happy New Year"!

Apologies to readers for the gap in posting, I was away in the UK over Christmas and access to the internet was somewhat limited.

Anyway, a belated "Happy New Year" and may 2005 be a great year for you! I genuinely believe that even in "difficult times" the individual can prosper by taking responsibility for their own lives and creating their own destiny.

To your own "Freedom and Prosperity"!